Wendy,I do think God causes evolution. As for Hume, he's outdated by modern biology and cosmology. He didnot realize that the senses must reveal something real in order for us to survive. Yes the observer contributes to what is observed, but one would be amiss, solipsistic, to assume the observation is all there is. Hume flirted with solipsism. Communication among diverse minds has proved his claims to be spurious.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Ierrellus wrote:Wendy,I do think God causes evolution. As for Hume, he's outdated by modern biology and cosmology. He did not realize that the senses must reveal something real in order for us to survive. Yes the observer contributes to what is observed, but one would be amiss, solipsistic, to assume the observation is all there is. Hume flirted with solipsism. Communication among diverse minds has proved his claims to be spurious.

Perhaps it takes some brave souls in any time or era (do you really believe that THIS is the worst time in history?) to think that God did it; that is, if their thinking is based on investigation, examination, cognitive thinking and facts...not simply sentimentality and a need for some all-powerful entity or father figure to exist.

But what is so brave about automatically believing in a God? What is so brave about letting go and "letting God" handle things? Kind of foolish, don't you think, capable of wreaking such havoc on the world?What kind of evidence can we have for any type of God which we tend to believe in except for what our senses tell us or make us feel?

Think of all the tragedy, horror and destruction brought on by some of your same so-called brave souls because they seem to think and feel that God did it, or told them to do it, or they decided not to do something about it because they think and feel that a God would take care of it.

Do you believe in divine design because you believe in the kind of God which directly caused the universe and is omnipotent and omniscient? What if both directions are wrong?What if it is something else which got it all moving?

Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”

You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.

It is so easy to dismiss religious claims by referring to the most toxic forms of religious fundamentalism as classic examples of belief in God. That's the straw man most commonly used in arguments by atheists and agnostics. Face it, the God is dead or the God does not exist ideas are about a century old. These ideas do not address progressive religion as it has evolved and have not replaced the God belief with anything better. A second straw man is to reference outdated philosophy as revealing how brain/minds actually work. How about seeing religion and philosophy from the vantage point of the twenty-first century?

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

It is so easy to dismiss religious claims by referring to the most toxic forms of religious fundamentalism as classic examples of belief in God.

...by ALSO referring to the most toxic forms of religious fundamentalism as ~~ et cetera. These references do paint a larger picture, do they not, about one's particular belief in God and how that belief affects their own life and that of others.Why would you dismiss them? That would be like *sweeping the dirt under the rug*?, no?

Have you ever put a puzzle together? Do you throw away the pieces which you just cannot seem to fit somewhere? Or do you try to figure out where they actually *fit*?

Face it, the God is dead or the God does not exist ideas are about a century old

.

I myself am not sure of that. The names have changed and the circumstances but it seems to me that that same God exists and the ideas too.

These ideas do not address progressive religion as it has evolved and have not replaced the God belief with anything better.

What is it that you think WILL replace the same old God belief?

A second straw man is to reference outdated philosophy as revealing how brain/minds actually work. How about seeing religion and philosophy from the vantage point of the twenty-first century?

So, in a nutshell, where do YOU see God's actual place in the twenty-first century? Is your God an "I Am Who I Am or is your God an I Am Who I Am Becoming?

Do you think that your God is the same God in time (or out of time) NOW as was in time (or out lol) before any thought or conception ever occurred of this plausible Something?Does or did the thought which brought God into existence change God?

Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”

You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.

Nothing I can propose would please you. I've stated my perspective again and again and yet you ask questions as if I had never tried to explain anything about my progressive religious beliefs. I believe evolution is not without purpose. Take it from there.I reference the "god is dead" idea as coming into vogue after Nietzsche and as popular in the early 20th century. In any event, the idea does nothing to benefit the destiny of humans on the Earth or to remedy man's inhumanity to man..So you think you are immune to determinism? Every stem cell in your body "knew" what organ it would become.I've had problems with Nagel since his "What It's Like to be a Bat" essay, circa 1970s. He claimed we'll never know what that is like. E. O. Wilson did a thorough rebuttalof the essay in his work "Consilience" in which he explains in detail what it's like to be a bee.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

Arcturus Descending wrote:...by ALSO referring to the most toxic forms of religious fundamentalism as ~~ et cetera. These references do paint a larger picture, do they not, about one's particular belief in God and how that belief affects their own life and that of others.Why would you dismiss them? That would be like *sweeping the dirt under the rug*?, no?

If someone was denying those phenomena or if they were painting a rosy picture of religion in general, sure then it's sweeping under the rug. But if it is not relevent to a point someone is making or if it is openly or implicitly fallacious - some (or many or even most) religious believers have done X, therefore religious belief is Y, then it is good that he points out the problem. And this is endemic to discussions like this. Sure, theists also focus where they want to in these kinds of discussions, some of them that is. But the sins of one group do not excuse the irrationality of the other and vice versa.

Have you ever put a puzzle together? Do you throw away the pieces which you just cannot seem to fit somewhere? Or do you try to figure out where they actually *fit*?

If we focus only on cases that fit our judgments of religion, we make precisely this mistake. You are defending the criticism by using the same argument as the criticism.

Prismatic567 wrote:Since the idea of God emerged >10,000 years ago till now there are no convincing proofs for the existence of a God.

Given all the billions of people who have believed in God in that time, the evidence and proofs must be convincing to somebody. What the hell do you even mean declaring something that has convinced billions of people to be unconvincing? Unconvincing to you personally? Who cares?

Many theists concede their belief in a God is based on faith.

And many others declare their belief is based on proof and/or evidence.

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of defending their theism with all sorts of contorted arguments and to the extreme of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

Because like five people have read your proof against the existence of God and zero of them took it seriously.

Prismatic567 wrote:Since the idea of God emerged >10,000 years ago till now there are no convincing proofs for the existence of a God.

Given all the billions of people who have believed in God in that time, the evidence and proofs must be convincing to somebody. What the hell do you even mean declaring something that has convinced billions of people to be unconvincing? Unconvincing to you personally? Who cares?

I wonder if you are aware of the ad populum fallacy.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

For rationality sake, the bottom line is justification within an empirical-rational reality.

Who cares?As a responsible citizen of the world, when informed of this stats and the whole range of evil acts by SOME [from a potential pool of 300 million]https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpgfor humanity sake, one has to take note and care.

Many theists concede their belief in a God is based on faith.

And many others declare their belief is based on proof and/or evidence.

Then provide the proofs and justification with a credible platform which is no other than the empirical-rational one. Else which other?

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of defending their theism with all sorts of contorted arguments and to the extreme of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

Because like five people have read your proof against the existence of God and zero of them took it seriously.

Whether anyone agree with me or not, it is critical to take note of the stats of evil acts from theists [a critical SOME of large numbers] who act in the name of a God which is illusory and an impossibility.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

While many theists concede this I would say more, at least within Christianity that I have encountered are not conceding this but seeing this as essential or positive. Not backed into a corner by someone's great rationality but valuing faith. This should be coupled with the previous poster's point that many others have empirical reasons for believing in God. If you think this is not the case, you probably lack an understanding of what empirical means, especially in philosophy. Further an examination of the processes through which you yourself arrived at beliefs is likely to contain many faith or intuition based beliefs, like many of the one's you have about theists, what must necessarily be the case, what a valid syllogism is, the pacific nature of Christianity, and likely a host of other more personal heuristics you use to navigate the world, often successfully.

That is not necessarily true. I cannot see your future posts or writings into the future.Somehow I cannot see us disagreeing on everything. But my thoughts and experiences can have the capacity to be different than yours so...

I've stated my perspective again and again and yet you ask questions as if I had never tried to explain anything about my progressive religious beliefs.

So are you saying here that my mind does not have the right to respond with another question?If we all agreed with one another, why even have a philosophy forum? Statements do lead to other question.

I believe evolution is not without purpose. Take it from there.

That is your right to believe. I can see how you would believe that. It has so followed such a distinct course. Look where we began and who knows where we will end up.

Do people believe that because they believe in a designing God? Are you saying that the act of evolution is a *conscious* one like our conscious choices are? Well, not all of our choices are that *consciously* made.

I reference the "god is dead" idea as coming into vogue after Nietzsche and as popular in the early 20th century. In any event, the idea does nothing to benefit the destiny of humans on the Earth or to remedy man's inhumanity to man..

I cannot know if this is true or not and neither can you actually. Perhaps you are basing this on your own inner experience and belief in a God.But it doesn't seem to me, on one side of the coin, that the idea of God has done much to remedy to benefit or to save humanity so far.True, there are many believers who have benefited mankind through their actions but I wonder if many of those, in not believing, might still have benefited mankind.It seems to me that if humanity needs a God in order to be humane to other human beings, something is gravely lacking.

So you think you are immune to determinism? Every stem cell in your body "knew" what organ it would become.

Of course not and it is quite awesome, isn't it?But I do not see ALL events as being determined or pre-determined.I do see cause and effect especially if we go back far enough or even as far back as a day or a week.I do not know if anything is random. I cannot say either way and I prefer not to...well, I might suggest that nothing is random - we just do not take the time to look and we do not have all of the facts.We choose to see what we want to.But I do see myself as having free choice and I may not be able to change what has happened but I can still change it in the way I see it and choose to transform it. And no matter what, I am still eventually responsible for my own outcome.

I've had problems with Nagel since his "What It's Like to be a Bat" essay, circa 1970s. He claimed we'll never know what that is like. E. O. Wilson did a thorough rebuttalof the essay in his work "Consilience" in which he explains in detail what it's like to be a bee.

I will have to read that to know if he really can have the experience to know what it's like to be a bee.I think not but I will keep an open mind.

Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”

You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.

Prismatic567 wrote:In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I wonder if you have the reading comprehension skills to realize I didn't do anything even vaguely associated with the above in my comment. Let me repeat my comment, and see if you can actually manage an intelligent reply to it this time:

Why are you calling something 'unconvincing' when it has actually convinced billions of people?

Please note that a question is not a damned argument, of the 'ad populum' variety or any other variety. If you need me to teach you how logical fallacies work, I can. In fact, I have an essay or two kicking around on here for that very purpose.

You need to learn how this shit actually works if you want to be taken seriously as some kind of rationalist that has the capacity to prove/disprove things. If you're this bad at comprehension of fallacies, then you know (admit it or not) that your background in philosophy can't cash the checks you write with your haughty attitude, so why not give it up and learn a little?

Then provide the proofs and justification with a credible platform which is no other than the empirical-rational one. Else which other?

That's been done many times in many places by more authors than you will have time in your life to read. What is the purpose in pretending nobody has presented or discussed the rational case for the existence of God? Is it because you lack a basic familiarity with the arguments?

Uccisore wrote:On the other hand, millions of people were once convinced that Marxism, Communism, socialism etc., reflected the most rational and virtuous embodiment of political economy.

Right, and I wouldn't call Marxism, Communism, socialism etc. unconvincing either. That would be dumb has hell, as obviously a great many people actually were convinced. What was your point?

My point was that being convinced or unconvinced that Marxism, Communism, socialism etc., reflected the most rational embodiment of political economy was predicated on the fact that the arguments were rooted in actual human interactions that could be described, assessed and judged.

Now, how would you describe, assess and judge a God, the God, your God such that others are then able to at least determine if in fact this is the most rational embodiment of belief --- of that which is said to be true for all of us.

And, with immortality, salvation and divine justice at stake what could possibly be more important to mere mortals than being able to in fact establish that?

Sure, we can go on and on and on as philosophers configuring and then reconfiguring God [technically, epistemologically] into one or another intellectual contraption.

But we are all faced with death, with oblivion in a No God world. And in a No God world we are all confronted with value judgments that come into conflict. Precipitating for centuries now all manner of intense human pain and suffering. How then ought we to live in a No God world?

The God world folks will either go there or they won't.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Prismatic567 wrote:In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I wonder if you have the reading comprehension skills to realize I didn't do anything even vaguely associated with the above in my comment. Let me repeat my comment, and see if you can actually manage an intelligent reply to it this time:

Why are you calling something 'unconvincing' when it has actually convinced billions of people?

Please note that a question is not a damned argument, of the 'ad populum' variety or any other variety. If you need me to teach you how logical fallacies work, I can. In fact, I have an essay or two kicking around on here for that very purpose.

You need to learn how this shit actually works if you want to be taken seriously as some kind of rationalist that has the capacity to prove/disprove things. If you're this bad at comprehension of fallacies, then you know (admit it or not) that your background in philosophy can't cash the checks you write with your haughty attitude, so why not give it up and learn a little?

Point is you may not have used that directly as a conclusion but it is leading to that argumentum ad populum on the basis of a your question.

Then provide the proofs and justification with a credible platform which is no other than the empirical-rational one. Else which other?

That's been done many times in many places by more authors than you will have time in your life to read. What is the purpose in pretending nobody has presented or discussed the rational case for the existence of God? Is it because you lack a basic familiarity with the arguments?

Note I stated 'empirical-rational' not rational.

I understand there are arguments based purely on reason alone for the existence of a God, e.g. the ontological argument for an ontological God. In any case, this is an impossible proof [Kant].

You are a moderator here and I wonder why you are using the term the derogatory term 'shit' so easily. Generally I do not debate or discuss contentious issues [especially on the existence of God] with moderators as it is always a win-lose or lose-lose situation to non-moderators since moderators by default has the ace cards. Since this is getting 'shitty' I shall give it a pass.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Prismatic567 wrote:Point is you may not have used that directly as a conclusion but it is leading to that argumentum ad populum on the basis of a your question.

I doesn't really interest me where my train of thought is going in your imagination. Were you going to answer the question? Let me ask it a third time:

Why would you call something that has convinced billions of people 'unconvincing'?

Note I stated 'empirical-rational' not rational.

There are empirical arguments for the existence of God as well.

I understand there are arguments based purely on reason alone for the existence of a God, e.g. the ontological argument for an ontological God. In any case, this is an impossible proof [Kant].You are a moderator here and I wonder why you are using the term the derogatory term 'shit' so easily. Generally I do not debate or discuss contentious issues [especially on the existence of God] with moderators as it is always a win-lose or lose-lose situation to non-moderators since moderators by default has the ace cards. Since this is getting 'shitty' I shall give it a pass.

Prismatic567 wrote:Point is you may not have used that directly as a conclusion but it is leading to that argumentum ad populum on the basis of a your question.

I doesn't really interest me where my train of thought is going in your imagination. Were you going to answer the question? Let me ask it a third time:

Why would you call something that has convinced billions of people 'unconvincing'?

The principle is; for anything to be convincing, it has to be justified true belief [JTB], i.e. knowledge.

Note you did not specify what is that something that has convinced billions of people.Since this OP is about 'God' and to topic, the relevant 'something' in this case must be referenced to 'God'.

Thus my point, billions of people are convinced God exists as real.I don't find that convincing because the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility as I had demonstrated in the other threads.

What I find more convincing as supported by evidence it is most plausible the idea of God arose out of dreaded psychological impulses that is inherent in all and thus the majority of theists.

Note I stated 'empirical-rational' not rational.

There are empirical arguments for the existence of God as well.

There are no empirical arguments for the existence of a real God.What is postulated are based on the empirical effects [creation, etc.] that are supposedly attributed to an illusory and impossible God.

I understand there are arguments based purely on reason alone for the existence of a God, e.g. the ontological argument for an ontological God. In any case, this is an impossible proof [Kant].You are a moderator here and I wonder why you are using the term the derogatory term 'shit' so easily. Generally I do not debate or discuss contentious issues [especially on the existence of God] with moderators as it is always a win-lose or lose-lose situation to non-moderators since moderators by default has the ace cards. Since this is getting 'shitty' I shall give it a pass.

Hey, whatever excuse works for you, I suppose.[/quote]I have addressed some of your questions but my preference and stance is;nothing personal, it is a general view [a safer one] I have gathered from many years of such bad experiences in forums where the moderators and owners are always KING by default.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Uccisore wrote:Why would you call something that has convinced billions of people 'unconvincing'?

On the other hand, it would seem the overwhelming preponderance of this convincing unfolds when most are children. Parents, communities, cultures etc., set about the task of cramming God and religion into the brains of those who have almost no real capacity to question what they are told.

And there is still that yawning gap between being convinced that God exists and demonstrating to others why they ought to be convinced too.

Empirically in particular.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Arc,I believe in evolution---that god did it and does it. Our experience of evolving gives us the underpinnings of all of our ideas. I do not see how you can believe in purposeful evolution without believing in a prime mover and consequent maintainer of life systems. It seems from your remarks that you are not so much against God as you are against how God is explained in arguments such as these.

"We must love one another or die." W.H.AudenI admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.

I believe in evolution---that god did it and does it. Our experience of evolving gives us the underpinnings of all of our ideas.

Alright. Belief is not based on certainty. Can you say that you are certain, that you know, that God did it and does it? As I have said before, I can imagine because of what I "see", how someone could "see" a designing God but is it possible that there can be another explanation for what appears to be?Is it possible that your God at some point STOPPED and allowed things to go their own way or is that ludicrous? lol

I do not see how you can believe in purposeful evolution without believing in a prime mover and consequent maintainer of life systems.

I do not necessarily "believe" in a purposeful evolution. I cannot take it that far.Would it be a silly statement to make to say that because we humans *see* purpose, apply purpose to things THAT becomes the reality ~~ real or not ~~ evolution always from beginning to whatever end there will be ~~ is full of purpose? How can we know even that some Prime Mover had a distinct pre-determined intentional purpose? Based on what I see, even I can question that question but still...if we cannot KNOW God, we cannot know.

Well, I am agnostic because I cannot say there isn't a prime mover but I also cannot say that there is. That veil falls before my eyes.

It seems from your remarks that you are not so much against God as you are against how God is explained in arguments such as these.

You do have a point there. See, we found something to agree on.I am not against your God. I would in reality love nothing more than to be able to *see* this God as a supposed God actually is ~~ not in the multitudinous ways in which humanity sees.

How can I be against something which I cannot know or understand? lol Actually, that just might be the very reason that many are against God or against anything for that matter.

Is it possible that it is the same for the atheist? Perhaps it is not so much that the atheist is against/adverse to/blind to a God but just has put up some kind of a wall to not see the God of the many and there are also many faces to this God.

Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.

“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”

You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.

Arcturus Descending wrote:How can I be against something which I cannot know or understand? lol Actually, that just might be the very reason that many are against God or against anything for that matter.

Is it possible that it is the same for the atheist? Perhaps it is not so much that the atheist is against/adverse to/blind to a God but just has put up some kind of a wall to not see the God of the many and there are also many faces to this God.

There are MANY reasons why a person is non-theistic [atheist]. I do deny there are non-theists [not all] who are defensive for various reasons.

I have good reasons and have demonstrated the idea of God is a moot point and a non-starter because the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within empirical reality.I have always given the analogy for the reality of God as a squared-circle which is an impossibility to be real.

Why the majority believe in a God is because of the very active desperate psychological factors.

Why some are agnostic is because of various reasons, i.e.

1. Empirical-based perspectiveIf one deliberate the issue of God on a empirical perspective, then one has to be an agnostic with the thesis of God. Note for example Dawkins who I am sure is a militant atheist but he has to be agnostic because he is bounded by agnosticism within Science.

2. Remnants of Psychological Desperation.Some remain agnostic due to the remnants of of very mild Psychological Desperation in relation to the idea of a God. If a fundamentalist has say a 95% active psychological desperation to theism, then a agnostic in this case may have 5%.

Point is if an agnostic can totally give up the idea of God, then s/he is free of that particular mental burden.

I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.

Observable phenomena have no purpose and there is no teleological basis for evolution any more than there is for gravity or for electromagnetismThe notion of purpose is a fallacious attempt by human beings to try and find objective meaning to their life rather than just accept there is none

Ierrellus wrote:I do not see how you can believe in purposeful evolution without believing in a prime mover and consequent maintainer of life systems

I can quite easily accept evolution as an observable phenomenon without needing to invoke God or thinking that it has any purposeI am curious to know why he would let life evolve for three and a half to four billion years before finally deciding to create humans